Here's a set of blue overlay fruiting vine and the blue also appears to be below the knop - it may well be an optical illusion, but I'm not sure... unfortunately the photo isn't close enough to that part of the stem to see clearly. I just thought I'd put the link here for reference.https://www.richardhoppe.co.uk/item.php?id=1128m

Looks to me like the knop on the glasses is decorative and that yours is a joining knop made into a decorative feature. I'm not sure you can compare the two constructions when one doesn't have a stem. I also think glasses may assembled by a team rather than by the main blower (but that could be nonsense).

Christine I think that is an illusion though which is why I was questioning Paul and Paul said'However, I can confirm your assumption re the method of connecting bowl and stem on my 'Fruiting Vine' glasses, and it does certainly appear that the pointy bottom of the bowl is inserted into a small cavity of sorts - formed as a depression in the collar/merese at the top of the stem. 'so it isn't a decorative thing on the glass it is a method of joining the bowl to the stem... I think What I suppose I'm interested in, is that possibly this is a named or particular method of attaching bowls to stems, but that it isn't often used by many makers and Walsh Walsh appears to be one of the makers who did use this.always the possibility I'm barking up the wrong tree of course m

But would that be the case on Sue's stem? i.e. could it be a drawn stem on Sue's goblet then where the bowl is full uranium glass with a clear stem? It is full uranium cut, rather than clear cased in uranium yellow and then cut to clear as far as I can see.m

It's possibly my lack of understanding of glassmaking techniques, but I cannot get my head around how you could draw a clear stem from a bowl that has been blown from a uranium glass gather. Would you not have to, in some way, apply a clear blob to draw/apply a clear stem?Sorry for all the questions I was also going on Paul's comments earlier that he thought the glasses had been made in three parts, bowl, stem and foot.m

The down side of writing excessively, is that you always get beaten to the 'post' by someone else.

Christine's green tinted glass is a two piece example, presumably, with bowl and stem as one, and the foot as the other.

m's comment quote........ "but I cannot get my head around how you could draw a clear stem from a bowl that has been blown from a uranium glass gather. Would you not have to, in some way, apply a clear blob to draw/apply a clear stem?" .........is rational and proves the point that the Walsh examples are almost certainly three part glasses.

I will leave my scribblings unchanged, and this was what I had intended to post...............

"yes I did go, and pleased to say I have a positive result and will post later this afternoon (I'm fortunate - I can get there in about 40 minutes).

We may be heading towards a non-result on this matter of the knop/collar business, as most probably the clever people who might know the answer are unable to handle the pieces in question.According to Wilkinson, older drinking glasses were indeed made by a team......i.e. 'servitor' - 'bit gatherer' and finally the 'maker'. This author describes no less than thirteen separate operations, and that was for a simple wine glass (without any knops/collars) - Wilkinson is a good read if you want some detailed descriptions of manufacturing processes. So Lustrousstone would seem to have been correct when speaking of a team.

I could be completely wrong, but had this notion that a drawn trumpet could only be described as such provided there was a continuously smooth (without knops or collars) surface between rim and bottom of stem. The difficulty, possibly, with these 'Fruiting Vine' glasses concerns the positioning of the knop/collar. If you look at most drinking glasses that possess these decorative components, it is far more common to find such swellings, not at the extreme ends of the stem, but rather at some point along it. With vey rare exceptions (Newcastle Light Balusters) these swellings are formed as an integral part of the stem - presumably by twisting/contracting etc., coupled with use of tools. But the fact that on said glasses the component is bang under the bowl, confuses the issue, although in my ignorance it appears to me that because of the almost split seam between the bowl and the stem, then that implies a join.

Having said all of that, I've never seen a glass being made and can't find a decent book description of manufacture, so finito.

Paul thanksI think there are lots of examples where the knop/merese sits under the bowl I have antique glasses that have a knop/merese of some sort under the bowl where the bowl joins the stem.There are also a number of examples of this in Charles Hajdamach's 20th Century British Glass pages 48 and 49 for example. My query is twofold1) over the way the knop/merese is applied and shaped and how the bowl is squashed into the knop/merese2) that I thought the Walsh Walsh fruiting vine goblets being discussed here are made in 3 parts with a bowl, stem and foot - and utilise the knop/merese in the way I have described above with the bowl being squashed down into the knop/merese.

I'm glad Kew was successful - do they do a telephone or email order service for checking reg numbers do you know at all please?m